|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 3, 2009 17:42:17 GMT -5
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/02/alaska-gop-calls-for-begich-resignation/#more-46361Why? Because Stevens didn't win, and now that he's been cleared of the charges that were hanging over his head during the election, they don't think it was fair. Therefore, there should be a special election. Seriously. What the hell? In what reality does this work? "I've been indicted, and convicted." *LOSES ELECTION* "Oops, turns out I'm not convicted anymore. I DECLARE A DO-OVER!" Okay, now I'm convinced the GOP is full of kindergartners who don't understand how things happen in the adult world.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 3, 2009 17:59:10 GMT -5
No, actually. The case was called a mistrial, or whatever the hell you do, because of prosecutorial misconduct. So he's not innocent, they just didn't prove guilt in that case, and can't try again cause of double jeopardy.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 3, 2009 18:05:23 GMT -5
No, actually. The case was called a mistrial, or whatever the hell you do, because of prosecutorial misconduct. So he's not innocent, they just didn't prove guilt in that case, and can't try again cause of double jeopardy. Ah, thank you for the clarification. I was paraphrasing the article, which said he was cleared.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 3, 2009 20:46:44 GMT -5
So a republican gets prosecuted by a republican justice department which fails to disclose evidence to the defense, and this mess has to be cleaned up by a democratic justice department and they want a democratic senator to step down.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 3, 2009 22:25:00 GMT -5
From what I've seen, the logic is that the legal issues around him may have caused people who would have voted for him to vote against him and so people want Begich to step aside so that a new election could take place.
If people wanted to be reasonable about it, they'd do something similar to the recall election in California: put out a petition, set a minimum number of signatures, and go from there. If the minimum is met, we have a recall election in 2010. If not, then Begich keeps his job.
|
|
|
Post by BenderBRodriguez on Apr 3, 2009 22:30:23 GMT -5
What would the grounds for the recall be? Begich has done nothing wrong, and I doubt Alaskans want to spend money on an election that's basically a "do-over" just so the Old Guard can reclaim his spot in the Senate. That's not democracy.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 3, 2009 23:42:10 GMT -5
Sounds like he's been "cleared" in the same way Sarah Palin was "cleared"--except the report showed she wasn't and the trial didn't prove that he was. WTF is wrong with Alaska right now?
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 3, 2009 23:56:00 GMT -5
If people wanted to be reasonable about it, they'd do something similar to the recall election in California: put out a petition, set a minimum number of signatures, and go from there. If the minimum is met, we have a recall election in 2010. If not, then Begich keeps his job. That's not reasonable at all. Just because Mr. Series of Tubes had a mistrial doesn't mean he gets a do-over. This isn't the third grade.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 4, 2009 0:06:03 GMT -5
Eh. It's Alaska. They're kind of like Missouri, except they're the "blow me" state.
I'm sure the legal proceedings affected the campaigning and it would've been great if there'd been no need for them, but unless there's some evidence that the proceedings had malicious intent - that is, were orchestrated specifically to rob Stevens of his seat - I don't see why there's any reason to do anything so radical. It's not the cool type of radical, either.
They'll get their chance in six years, provided Stevens is still around then. The guy's 86, and served for forty consecutive years. It was probably about time for him to step down anyway.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Apr 4, 2009 0:52:46 GMT -5
From what I've seen, the logic is that the legal issues around him may have caused people who would have voted for him to vote against him and so people want Begich to step aside so that a new election could take place. If people wanted to be reasonable about it, they'd do something similar to the recall election in California: put out a petition, set a minimum number of signatures, and go from there. If the minimum is met, we have a recall election in 2010. If not, then Begich keeps his job. Your credibility on the issue of logic is questionable. Stevens was not "cleared", rather the charges were dropped due to prosecutional misconduct, after a mistrial was declared. His guilt or innocence were NOT established. As to reason, and reasonability, your credibility is also questionable. Begich won the election. If anything, Steven should have stepped aside while he was on trial, and should not have been allowed to run at all, while under indictment for corruption. That would have been reasonable. You are right though, logic and reason will win out.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 4, 2009 1:21:11 GMT -5
I have a question: if Stevens is so enamoured of everyone getting a second chance, will he waive his Double Jeapordy rights and allow the Democratic DoJ to 'do over' the Republican's screw-ups?
Or does he only want to set precedent favourable to him?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 4, 2009 7:31:39 GMT -5
I have a question: if Stevens is so enamoured of everyone getting a second chance, will he waive his Double Jeapordy rights and allow the Democratic DoJ to 'do over' the Republican's screw-ups? Or does he only want to set precedent favourable to him? Or for that matter, let a do over of his trial happen?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 4, 2009 11:19:09 GMT -5
I have a question: if Stevens is so enamoured of everyone getting a second chance, will he waive his Double Jeapordy rights and allow the Democratic DoJ to 'do over' the Republican's screw-ups? Or does he only want to set precedent favourable to him? Depending on the applicable laws and how the lawyers want to wrangle with everything, there might be a new trial anyway.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Apr 4, 2009 11:55:50 GMT -5
I have a question: if Stevens is so enamoured of everyone getting a second chance, will he waive his Double Jeapordy rights and allow the Democratic DoJ to 'do over' the Republican's screw-ups? Or does he only want to set precedent favourable to him? Depending on the applicable laws and how the lawyers want to wrangle with everything, there might be a new trial anyway. Unless they have a new crime to try him for, no there won't.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 4, 2009 18:05:13 GMT -5
I have a question: if Stevens is so enamoured of everyone getting a second chance, will he waive his Double Jeapordy rights and allow the Democratic DoJ to 'do over' the Republican's screw-ups? Or does he only want to set precedent favourable to him? Depending on the applicable laws and how the lawyers want to wrangle with everything, there might be a new trial anyway. No, there won't because of double jepordy.
|
|